Club Sale | It’s done!

[antohan]

Does Sancho not after all this? Also at the very least Antony works his socks off every game. I have much more disdain for players who don't even put in the effort for us.

Yeah, one reason I always had time for Lingard despite thoroughly disliking all the non-football nonsense and particularly that clip on the bus attacked by the bubble cnuts.

There's also the fact it isn't Antony's fault that he is so limited or that we paid a fortune for him.

It is Sancho's fault that he has made absolutely no effort to fulfill his potential.

 

[Revaulx]

Alright, list the managers that have walked from a job at United, or in the PL, or any top job in Europe. Let's see how many people aren't 'motivated by money'.

It doesn’t have to be about motivation.

Ratcliffe tells ETH to restore Sancho to the squad. ETH says “Nope. I won’t.” and gets sacked. United won’t want to go down the Gross Misconduct route, so he gets a payout.

He leaves with dignity intact AND a wad of cash. What’s not to like?

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I feel Ratcliffes age will have a big bearing on this. Hes not in it for the long term, so it depends what hes after.
If he wants full ownerhip, he has to get a move on, so there must be something in the contracts drawn up.
If however he just wants to say at least I got my wish of having an hand running the club, it could end up with the Glazers stopping long term.

My worry.

What IF he is happy with 25% and sporting control?

I struggle to think a man who’s a self made billionaire would do this but maybe he sees something (and an important something) over nothing… maybe the Glazers stay, still have 75% shares and reap the benefits of a better run club with the linked knock on benefits of income from on field success and resultant extra income from improved sponsorship?

Yuck.

 

[antohan]

Do neither of you remember Bebe?

Bebe has scored two goals in nine games in La Liga this season. That's two more than Sancho and Antony have managed in fifteen games.

 

[antohan]

Regarding the 25 % thing, he's either buying a majority or we'll be sold fully in the next 5 years or so, it's impossible that he is putting the money in that has been talked about without some sort of cast iron guarantee either way.

Five hundred to one on that it'll be the former, but nothing would surprise me anymore with United.

He likely has an option to buy but somewhat out of the money.

As it is, if what he wanted was to try his hand at fixing United, legacy, yadda yadda, he may as well do a "try before you buy" and either saved money if he fails or, if he doesn't, be happy enough with control for a fraction of the cost.

I'm not seeing why he wouldn't be fine with not owning the club outright so long as the football control part does materialise.

 

[sglowrider]

Personal opinion, even after the 25% investment is announced, we may not know this for sure.

Ratcliffe and The Glazers will have to project an image of a happy family. I cant see a scenario where Jim comes out and says "I have 25% but intend to buy out the majority owners". Not only could that impact share prices of a publicly listed company, it could also upset the thin skinned Glazers and make a potential takeover more complicated.

Nor do I think there will be information made available about put/call options that have been pre-agreed. It is in both The Glazers and INEOS's best interest to keep that all underay wraps.

I am sure any pre-agreed scenarios are not set in stone for the benefit of all parties -- allowing for some leeway.

So knowing the Glazers if Ratcliffe & team manages to turn around the fortunes of Manchester United they may not want to let it go so easily then!

If Ratcliffe fails then it will be status quo? Remain at 25%?

 

[Moston Red]

My worry.

What IF he is happy with 25% and sporting control?

I struggle to think a man who’s a self made billionaire would do this but maybe he sees something (and an important something) over nothing… maybe the Glazers stay, still have 75% shares and reap the benefits of a better run club with the linked knock on benefits of income from on field success and resultant extra income from improved sponsorship?

Yuck.

The Glazers own 69%. Sir Jim is buying 25% of the whole club.

Sir Jims end goal is to own the club outright, I'm sure there's a plan in place....you would hope

 

[antohan]

My worry.

What IF he is happy with 25% and sporting control?

I struggle to think a man who’s a self made billionaire would do this but maybe he sees something (and an important something) over nothing… maybe the Glazers stay, still have 75% shares and reap the benefits of a better run club with the linked knock on benefits of income from on field success and resultant extra income from improved sponsorship?

Yuck.

See three posts above. I reckon he must be well chuffed with it.

I frankly couldn't care less if the Glazers get a free ride to a better run and more successful club, it would mean we are going somewhere after years going nowhere.

Stop framing it as "the Glazers must lose or I don't win", they won't. It's the hope that kills you.

 

[RedUnited86]

Nepotism FC. Is Paul Luke Shaw's dad by any chance?

 

[gaffs]

I am sure any pre-agreed scenarios are not set in stone for the benefit of all parties -- allowing for some leeway.

So knowing the Glazers if Ratcliffe & team manages to turn around the fortunes of Manchester United they may not want to let it go so easily then!

If Ratcliffe fails then it will be status quo? Remain at 25%?

I doubt that. There would be no incentive for Ratcliffe to both invest and bring better people as that would result in the shares he intends to buy costing more.

I expect there will be pre agreed windows of opportunity for both Ratcliffe to buy and Glazers to sell - put and call options.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

See three posts above. I reckon he must be well chuffed with it.

I frankly couldn't care less if the Glazers get a free ride to a better run and more successful club, it would mean we are going somewhere after years going nowhere.

Stop framing it as "the Glazers must lose or I don't win", they won't. It's the hope that kills you.

Sorry, obviously poorly worded.

It wasn’t a “they must lose” thing… selling the club for $BNs is hardly losing. It was more that the chat about SJR deal was 25% now and rest later and I’d perhaps got used to that idea and now not so sure.

Just a personal thing (how I was brought up), don’t like people who piggyback on others hard work and success. Irks.

 

[lsd]

I doubt that. There would be no incentive for Ratcliffe to both invest and bring better people as that would result in the shares he intends to buy costing more.

I expect there will be pre agreed windows of opportunity for both Ratcliffe to buy and Glazers to sell - put and call options.

I do wonder about the mentality of people who think Sir Jim is just walking into this blind with no guarantee at all from the Glazers that he will end up the sole owner at an agreed price in an agreed time.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I am sure any pre-agreed scenarios are not set in stone for the benefit of all parties -- allowing for some leeway.

So knowing the Glazers if Ratcliffe & team manages to turn around the fortunes of Manchester United they may not want to let it go so easily then!

If Ratcliffe fails then it will be status quo? Remain at 25%?

People are basing the sole control narrative on hope. The glazers statement said they would look at investment, this until we are categorically told otherwise is just that.

If Ratcliffe is so optimistic of turning the club around, thus increasing the value, why would the Glazers agree to selling him the club at today’s price? They’ve done nothing in favour of the club over themselves, this will be no different.

When people show you who they are, believe them.

 

[George The Best]

I doubt that. There would be no incentive for Ratcliffe to both invest and bring better people as that would result in the shares he intends to buy costing more.

I expect there will be pre agreed windows of opportunity for both Ratcliffe to buy and Glazers to sell - put and call options.

Really got my doubts about this. SJR (or 92F) couldn’t oust them now, so don’t see why the Glazer’s would agree to a deal now that would oust them in the future.

I get the feeling that SJR is happy with the 25% and control of the football operation. He can still be seen as the knight in shining armour coming in to ‘rescue’ the club.

Glazer’s aren’t going anywhere until somebody puts up a ridiculous amount of money - which means likely never

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

I doubt that. There would be no incentive for Ratcliffe to both invest and bring better people as that would result in the shares he intends to buy costing more.

I expect there will be pre agreed windows of opportunity for both Ratcliffe to buy and Glazers to sell - put and call options.

Based on?

 

[antohan]

Sorry, obviously poorly worded.

It wasn’t a “they must lose” thing… selling the club for $BNs is hardly losing. It was more that the chat about SJR deal was 25% now and rest later and I’d perhaps got used to that idea and now not so sure.

Just a personal thing (how I was brought up), don’t like people who piggyback on others hard work and success. Irks.

I agree it irks but I see too many people trying to optimise too many variables.

My only variable is that anything moving away from what we currently have and showing even a minor proof of having a clue about football = progress and I'll take it.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I agree it irks but I see too many people trying to optimise too many variables.

My only variable is that anything moving away from what we currently have and showing even a minor proof of having a clue about football = progress and I'll take it.

Agreed.

Jean Claude (and other names that I have no clue about ) may well make it a better run club and I’m all for that.

And if the Glazers get mauled to death by a tiger who breaks out from a zoo… bonus.

 

[sglowrider]

Glazer’s aren’t going anywhere until somebody puts up a ridiculous amount of money - which means likely never

That's my expectations. Ratcliffe's Investment is just that. He knows that the Glazers won't want to sell unless it's for crazy amounts -- it's inevitable that the next owners of United will be sovereign fund or state backed money entities.

So the next best thing is to play FM 2023. At least he gets to play now.

If he does become successful in turn around the fortunes of United, then why not sell to the next level guys? It won't be for another 5 years. And he will be 77 by then.

If he needs to exit, which makes sense at that age he will sell out his 25% at the Glazers dream price.

He may also sell out ineos by then if they want to be sustainable against Big Oil. (ineos is just too small as an entity to compete in the long run.) He can use United is a fantastic marketing/branding platform to enhance the value of ineos for the future when they do sell out.

 

[MadDogg]

They’re both up there, if we’re honest. The reason the focus is on Antony more is because:

1. recency bias. He is a more recent signing.
2. the manager who signed him is still here and there’s even more criticism of the manager for this transfer than on Antony himself
3. he is consistently getting game time, unlike Sancho, which serves as a frequent reminder of what a waste of money he was
4. nobody thought he was worth the money in the first place, unlike Sancho.

All legitimate reasons, to be fair.

The fourth one is the only fair reason.

In a sense Antony was a worse SIGNING than Sancho, as he was so obviously not worth what we paid. Whereas Sancho had been brilliant previously and was certainly worth the fee. But holding that against the player themselves is ridiculous, that's an issue with the club. Once the players arrived here Antony has been the superior player while also getting paid less, so the vitriol towards him (compared to some others) is quite unfair.

 

[sglowrider]

The fourth one is the only fair reason.

In a sense Antony was a worse SIGNING than Sancho, as he was so obviously not worth what we paid. Whereas Sancho had been brilliant previously and was certainly worth the fee. But holding that against the player themselves is ridiculous, that's an issue with the club. Once the players arrived here Antony has been the superior player while also getting paid less, so the vitriol towards him (compared to some others) is quite unfair.

Plus its a like for like replacement. Both play in the same Rw position even though Sancho has more multipositional flexibility

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

When has a manager walked? Genuine question.

Zidane after 3 Champions League.

Van Gaal was offering to resign in that December but Woodward stopped him.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Ducker says Jim is spending £650m each on Glazer B shares and public A shares.

How does that affect your calculations @Woziak ?

 

[Licha-Vidic]

• The Glazers are set to pocket around £650 million from the sale of their Class B shares to Ratcliffe, a situation that is likely to further antagonise supporters desperate to see the complete removal of the reviled Americans. The other half of the estimated £1.3 billion will go to non-Glazer shareholders.
• The B shares have 10 times the voting rights of the A shares but Ratcliffe is understood to be buying an equal share of each to remove the risk of litigation from A shareholders who could have contested any deal that threatened to leave them short changed.
• In addition to the purchase price, Ratcliffe is understood to have committed around £250 million in staggered investment for the club’s infrastructure needs, although such an amount would get nowhere near to covering the cost of a new or expanded stadium.

 

[sglowrider]

• The Glazers are set to pocket around £650 million from the sale of their Class B shares to Ratcliffe, a situation that is likely to further antagonise supporters desperate to see the complete removal of the reviled Americans. The other half of the estimated £1.3 billion will go to non-Glazer shareholders.
• The B shares have 10 times the voting rights of the A shares but Ratcliffe is understood to be buying an equal share of each to remove the risk of litigation from A shareholders who could have contested any deal that threatened to leave them short changed.
• In addition to the purchase price, Ratcliffe is understood to have committed around £250 million in staggered investment for the club’s infrastructure needs, although such an amount would get nowhere near to covering the cost of a new or expanded stadium.

Unless my memory is failing me but I remember it was mentioned here that if the Glazers B shares are sold they would be converted automatically to A shares? Then would it mean that the remaining Gazers shares wil still be 10x more voting power than any of Ratcliffe's 25% shares?

 

[MadMike]

The fourth one is the only fair reason.

In a sense Antony was a worse SIGNING than Sancho, as he was so obviously not worth what we paid. Whereas Sancho had been brilliant previously and was certainly worth the fee. But holding that against the player themselves is ridiculous, that's an issue with the club. Once the players arrived here Antony has been the superior player while also getting paid less, so the vitriol towards him (compared to some others) is quite unfair.

I pretty much completely disagree that Antony has been the superior player. The opposite in fact.

I also don’t think Antony is getting more vitriol at all. The vitriol is mostly directed at ETH for sanctioning such an expensive transfer for such a limited former players of his.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Unless my memory is failing me but I remember it was mentioned here that if the Glazers B shares are sold they would be converted automatically to A shares? Then would it mean that the remaining Gazers shares wil still be 10x more voting power than any of Ratcliffe's 25% shares?

With the current setup, you're right. I expect the board will vote and change that. To what effect and what voting power, we don't know yet.

 

[sglowrider]

With the current setup, you're right. I expect the board will vote and change that. To what effect and what voting power, we don't know yet.

Man, this deal so complicated. If its this complicated now, I cant imagine how complex it will to operation under such conditions. I wonder under what conditions will the Glazers give up their part of voting superpowers for this 1.3billion quid.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Man, this deal so complicated. If its this complicated now, I cant imagine how complex it will to operation under such conditions. I wonder under what conditions will the Glazers give up their part of voting superpowers for this 1.3billion quid.

Indeed, very complicated and with the available info, it doesn't make great sense in the long run.

I imagine glazers won't give away a lot of voting power at all for about £650m (the other 650m won't go to them).

Ultimately i think glazers are getting what they wanted - increased valuation of the club, some money, someone to look after the sporting side. They're not leaving now.

 

[Telsim]

Notice how the staged takeover talk has pretty much disappeared. The debt issue is also in a completely vague state. The Glazers with an absolute blinder of a deal. Played both bidders like a fiddle, and then found someone to invest and run their company, while they hold all the power. And he had to pay for that. This is just incredibly impressive. I feel like I owe them an apology as I always leaned towards the notion they are dumb.

And as for his part in this, Ratcliffe is playing the knight in shining armor role to seemingly great effect.

All of this is such a farce.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Notice how the staged takeover talk has pretty much disappeared. The Glazers with an absolute blinder of a deal. Played both bidders like a fiddle, and then found someone to invest and run their company, while they hold all the power. And he had to pay for that. This is just incredibly impressive. I feel like I owe them an apology as I always leaned towards the notion they are dumb.

And as for his part in this, Ratcliffe is playing the knight in shining armor role to seemingly great effect.

All of this is such a farce.

Spot on. Both sides getting all they ever wanted. As fans, i suppose our wait to see our club sort itself out continues. Hopefully Jim brings some structure and proper vision.

 

[Cloud7]

Personal opinion, even after the 25% investment is announced, we may not know this for sure.

Ratcliffe and The Glazers will have to project an image of a happy family. I cant see a scenario where Jim comes out and says "I have 25% but intend to buy out the majority owners". Not only could that impact share prices of a publicly listed company, it could also upset the thin skinned Glazers and make a potential takeover more complicated.

Nor do I think there will be information made available about put/call options that have been pre-agreed. It is in both The Glazers and INEOS's best interest to keep that all under wraps.

I really struggle to wrap my mind around this, and it's seemingly only become apparent during the takeover saga.

Do they genuinely believe that they have done a good job as the owners of United?

 

[Cloud7]

Really got my doubts about this. SJR (or 92F) couldn’t oust them now, so don’t see why the Glazer’s would agree to a deal now that would oust them in the future.

I get the feeling that SJR is happy with the 25% and control of the football operation. He can still be seen as the knight in shining armour coming in to ‘rescue’ the club.

Glazer’s aren’t going anywhere until somebody puts up a ridiculous amount of money - which means likely never

To be totally fair, this is what we actually need. There are other things around the club that could probably be improved upon, but someone to do better in terms of the football operation is the most important thing.

 

[RoyH1]

Notice how the staged takeover talk has pretty much disappeared. The debt issue is also in a completely vague state. The Glazers with an absolute blinder of a deal. Played both bidders like a fiddle, and then found someone to invest and run their company, while they hold all the power. And he had to pay for that. This is just incredibly impressive. I feel like I owe them an apology as I always leaned towards the notion they are dumb.

And as for his part in this, Ratcliffe is playing the knight in shining armor role to seemingly great effect.

All of this is such a farce.

They played everyone like a fiddle. The Qatari's must be fuming here.

 

[Kostov]

Am I too naive in expecting a productive January transfer window with Jim's team at the helm? The team needs it, so why waste time yes?

 

[horsechoker]

Am I too naive in expecting a productive January transfer window with Jim's team at the helm? The team needs it, so why waste time yes?

I think it'll be a damp squib as nothing is really moving as fast it should

 

[Big Andy]

Notice how the staged takeover talk has pretty much disappeared. The debt issue is also in a completely vague state. The Glazers with an absolute blinder of a deal. Played both bidders like a fiddle, and then found someone to invest and run their company, while they hold all the power. And he had to pay for that. This is just incredibly impressive. I feel like I owe them an apology as I always leaned towards the notion they are dumb.

And as for his part in this, Ratcliffe is playing the knight in shining armor role to seemingly great effect.

All of this is such a farce.

They bought the club using none of their own money, took hundreds of millions each out of the club over their tenure in dividends, and now they've sold a 25% stake for more than what they "paid" for it. One thing they are not, is dumb.

 

[VP89]

Notice how the staged takeover talk has pretty much disappeared.

It hasn't disappeared. Those details are just not going to be disclosed yet

 

[greenoffpearson]

Indeed, very complicated and with the available info, it doesn't make great sense in the long run.

I imagine glazers won't give away a lot of voting power at all for about £650m (the other 650m won't go to them).

Ultimately i think glazers are getting what they wanted - increased valuation of the club, some money, someone to look after the sporting side. They're not leaving now.

That would make sense.

The memorandum/articles refer to any sale of class B to non Glazers becoming class A

So power remains vested in the Glazer family.

They would have to change the memo/articles to change the position. That would require shareholder consent A and B.

The remaining A class could make an issue of this, eg I purchased shares on the basis of these rules and now they are changing them for personal gain etc

More points of confusion.

Arnold
Pushed or walked out on principle.
Pushed - Sir Jim wants him out, him making that announcement is a diplomatic dignity saving play.

Walked out on principle - voted against Sir Jim, or threatened by Class A groups.

Board meeting
Nothing to suggest it has taken place. No filing with NYSE or media announcement.

Cooperman buying and Ariel selling.

Cooperman was previously with Goldman Sachs and may have some info on the future lay of the land - must be promising, for Class A, if he is taking a stake at this stage?

Sir Jim and future stakes.

Sir Jim must be looking to buy proportionately the same ratio of class A and B going forward otherwise class A would be looked upon unfavourably?

If that is a solution, then that will mean it will take longer to get rid of the Glazers, Sir Jim having to spend more than originally envisaged.

Glazer premium for giving up control

How would that be dealt with?

They hold onto their more powerful Class B rights and are given a premium at the end?

It will be interesting to see how they have plotted the eventual removal of the Glazers and the time frame.

 

[horsechoker]

They bought the club using none of their own money, took hundreds of millions each out of the club over their tenure in dividends, and now they've sold a 25% stake for more than what they "paid" for it. One thing they are not, is dumb.

They symbolise everything wrong with capitalism

Yeah I said it

 

[Rake]

I think it'll be a damp squib as nothing is really moving as fast it should

Does it really matter if things move faster? How is the partial change in ownership going to affect the FFP? Don't think it gives us any leeway. The only viable option to sped if we sell Sancho for decent money. Even then, the targets we are linked with are from teams doing well in their respective leagues and are unlikely to sell now.

I think what we have now will be the team available until the end of the season. We really need the injured players to return and stay fit.

Also, until the end of the season there will likely be a strategic evaluation of the squad and management in general. I fully expect the bigger changes to be enforced close to the end of the season/ in the summer, so it wouldn't make much sense to spend big now.

It is likely that EtH will be pushed further into team management boundaries (limiting his veto on transfers etc.) which might lead to us signing a new manager, even if INEOS are not actively looking to replace him.